| Risk factor | Finding | Evidence | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sellable | Yes | Transfer simulation | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Buy tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Sell tax | 0% | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Admin mint | Enabled | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Transfers pausable | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Address blacklist | Not present | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Upgradeable proxy | No | Contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Source verified | Yes | Block explorer | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Top-10 holders | 50.3% | Holder distribution | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Holders | 4252254 | Token contract | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Deployed by | 0xf07c30…ed7f47 |
| Current owner | 0xd2f934…cfd6c4 |
| Holders | 4,252,254 |
| Rank | Address | Share |
|---|---|---|
| #1 · contract · locked | 0x000000…001004 | 18.47% |
| #2 | 0x489a87…f79bec | 10.17% |
| #3 · contract | 0xe9e7ce…087d56 | 3.76% |
| #4 | 0xd2f934…cfd6c4 | 3.63% |
| #5 · contract | 0x7c9e73…87592f | 3.23% |
This automated check on BUSD (BSC) returned a score of 12 out of 18, based on contract mechanics only, as observed on the date of the check. The most significant finding is that the admin mint function is enabled, meaning the contract owner retains the ability to create new tokens at will. In practice, this means the circulating supply is not fixed by code alone, and it is the owner's discretion, not a hard cap, that limits future issuance. Top-10 wallets hold 50.2% of supply, which is a form of concentration risk: large holders moving funds can affect available liquidity and market price more than would be the case with a widely distributed token. On the positive side, no honeypot behaviour was detected in transfer simulation, buy and sell tax were both read as 0%, no pause function or address blacklist was found in the contract, it is not an upgradeable proxy, and the source code is verified on the block explorer, which allows the contract's logic to be inspected by anyone. None of these are guarantees about future behaviour; they describe what was detected in the code at the time of the scan.
It is important to be clear about what this check does not cover. It reads contract mechanics, such as whether functions like mint, pause, or blacklist exist and are callable, and whether trades simulate successfully. It does not assess who is behind the token, whether disclosed team identities are accurate, how tokenomics are structured beyond raw holder percentages, whether any legal entity stands behind the project, or what the stated intent of the deployer is. A token can show a high score on contract mechanics while still carrying risk from concentrated ownership, undisclosed off-chain arrangements, or centralized control retained by a small number of wallets or an admin key.
Before making any decision, it would be reasonable to look further into who controls the address holding the mint privilege, and whether that address is a multisig, a timelock, or a single externally owned account, since this affects how quickly supply changes could happen and who would need to approve them. It is also worth reviewing the distribution of the top-10 holders individually, rather than as an aggregate, to see whether concentration sits with exchanges, treasury contracts, or unidentified private wallets. Checking whether the project publishes an audit, a team identity, or governance documentation, and cross-referencing the contract address with the official issuer's published address, are also concrete next steps. This check does not constitute investment advice and does not predict how the token will perform.
Contracts change after they are checked. Tell us where to reach you and we will say when this one does. Free for three contracts, no account.
We checked 18 points out of 100.
The other 82 are where money is usually lost: who the team is, where the tokens sit, what the documents actually say, and what the project chose not to put on its front page.